there but let's focus on the outcomes. now in terms of finding legislative success, i think that we have got some pretty, some pretty specific characteristics that we should be keeping in mind. first, the committee process that is out there is therefore a reason. the last two major energy bills to be signed into law in 07 and in 05 were drafted largely by our congressional committee. now it can be somewhat tempting to form a gang to work on energy legislation. we have seen it before but we have also seen that typically, these efforts fall short. committees have the idea that have the expertise that they simply can't produce a better product and if markets are held regularly, as we are supposed to be doing, i think you can actually have a legislative measure to make it to the floor.

secondly, our legislative efforts have to be balanced. it is difficult to see legislation that is purely focused on a single technology, subsidy or priority drawing enough support to last. i think we have got to envision how we are going to move this through the process, and to find success we will need to pare legislation that for instance increases oil and gas production on federal lands with legislation that is focused on innovation. if we can agree to do that, i think you have the makings of a package that most members will be comfortable with. but you have got to find that balance there. we need to make some hard decisions about the extent of the federal government's role. the past several years i think we have seen some pretty remarkable advances in new technologies, like horizontal

drilling, hydraulic fracking. it's true that industries did most of the work in advancing these technologies and it's also true that the government played a role in the early stages of development when there was less reason for the private sector to be interested, and i think that these examples should be applied today. the federal government can help fund research that would otherwise not be undertaken. but, but our job is not to offer subsidies that never and. or subsidies to prop up a technology every step of the way to commercialization. i think a good example to look too might be methane hydrate. conocophillips and the doe have partnered to test a prospect on the north slope, but this won't never involve the government mandating energy from methane hydrate. it will never involve federal payments to companies to produce

or to deliver them. related to this is my fourth , that our energy policy simply has to pay for themselves. the tens of billions of dollars that was contained in the 2009 stimulus for clean energy projects have probably had much less impact than had been projected and many taxpayers, we are seeing it now and reading it in the newspapers, they are rightly unhappy with the results of that spending. our nation is sitting at $15 trillion in debt. we simply don't have the luxury to spend freely. i think we recognize that. instead, what we need to be doing is in being creative by addressing supply and demand at the same time. i have got anwr legislation that i've introduced for the past several years. we use the revenues from greater domestic oil production to help off set the spending on energy

are in deep. i think something like that, an approach like that, works. and fifth, we need to avoid legislation that directly or indirectly increases the price of energy. high gasoline prices have stretched our families and their businesses to the brink. i certainly see that in alaska. i have some communities in my state where they are paying upwards of $7 a gallon. some communities, $10 a gallon, almost unimaginable. of course electricity prices we are seeing rise and that adding to the pain that her family's experience. given how important energy as to the overall economy, given how it helps determine the price of nearly all other goods and services, our attention should he devoted to those policies that will help to lower the cost of energy, not raise it even further. and then finally, energy legislation while ultimately

depend on whether or not it is actually brought up for consideration on the senate floor. now you might say, well that is obvious, that is a given that but for nearly four years running now, we have not had a debate on comprehensive energy legislation on the senate floor. last congress, the energy committee reported out dozens of ills including a comprehensive package that sat on the calendar for months. this congress is shaping up to look pretty much the same, and fortunately. we have reported dozens of bills on a bipartisan basis, but where are they? you are not seeing them move through the floor. they are languishing on the floor. so even as the house passes bill after bill, dressing both traditional and renewable energy, the best that the senate has been able to really pull together at this point in time has been a brief debate on a

handful of energy related amendments that were called up during debate over the highway bill. that is the closest we have gotten this year so if we want to find success on energy policy, the senate is going to have to do better than they have been. it seems easy, it seems obvious again but we actually have to set aside some time to debate legislation. so, the big question of course is whether or not it is even possible that this can happen this year. i would like to think that the senate could find the time over the next six months to debate energy, but given the past 18 months that we have seen, it is probably not likely. i am generally the optimist in the room, but i am also the pragmatist. we are all looking at whether or not there might be something as -- possibilities within a lame-duck, but i am in the category that looks at that and

says i don't think that is where we are going to see much of anything happening with energy legislation there. i think so much of our attention has already shifted to the fiscal cliff that we are moving towards. we have got decisions of about $7 trillion worth of taxes and spending that need to be made before the end of the year. there may be time for an energy related amendments here or there, but i think the bulk of our time is probably going to be taken up with other issues, other concerns. so the six steps that i've outlined here this morning i don't think should be difficult for either party to accept or to accomplish. they largely fall in line with what americans are asking and they don't dramatically restrict the legislative options that are open to us. one good sign is that more and more of us are talking about and all of the above policy.

we started using this terminology on the republican side years ago. the president is using it, the administration uses it. it is good that we need to do more than just talk about it. we need to step up and show that it is a serious goal and it is an achievable goal. we need to take our words and translate them into meaningful policies. so with the senate largely inactive on energy legislation for more than three years running, i have had a lot of time to think about what actually makes good policy and i think it's a good sign that so many of you are thinking about this as well. we have got some serious challenges to overcome, and i think it's going to take all of us. again, beyond party boundaries, beyond regional boundaries, it's going to take all of us working together to forge some consensus to ensure that our future energy supply can meet the diverse demands of a prosperous nation and a growing world.

with that, i thank you for your attention this morning. happy to take questions if it's appropriate. i know i am followed by my good friend, secretary salazar, so i am curious to know what he is going to be able to share with us. >> lets see who wants to ask questions. we have some roaming microphones let's get one here and, who might ask a question on this side? alright, that woman back there, and you ask your question while she is getting her microphone. >> thank you very much. i am margaret with aol energy and i wondered senator, you talked about the lack of action on the floor of the many bills that have come out of the energy committee. why don't they get action? >> oh gosh.

[laughter] why don't they get action? i? i think part of it is competition with other issues. i think part of it is failure to make it a priority. energy issues have not been made a priority by the majority leader, and he is the one that sets a schedule. he is the one that makes a determination as to what we are going to be bringing up next. and it hasn't been high on his priority list which i think it's unfortunate. we have got a bill, the measure that senator shaheen and portman have been working for a couple of years now, pass through the committee on a bipartisan basis. it is a pretty, and the total scope of things, it's pretty small but when we are talking about the headway that we can make with efficiency and conservation, this is a good

bill. and we are not able to get to the attention even for something like that so i think it's an issue of competing priorities. and not putting it as high up on the list as many of us would like. >> you have the microphone, and let's find someone over here to pick up the mic. okay, you get the microphone while you are asking a question. >> i appreciate what you said about looking at all of the above and thinking about different options but when i actually listen to what you were saying it was so much more focused on domestic oil production, fracking and then the only mention i heard of renewable energy with saying you didn't feel that the stimulus was as effective as they had hoped. so i guess i'm just kind of wondering how you would balance the idea of all the above and where you see renewable energy fitting into that whole question?

>> given that my comments were very truncated in very brief, truly am just a couple of examples and the examples that i choose -- chose to use for what you picked up on, but i am a huge advocate for renewable energy of all kinds, advancing through a process that i don't think is very even-handed right now and that is why when i was talking about balance and those determinations that we as the federal government make, i don't want to say that the direction that we ought to be taking it is you you know, electric plug-in vehicles as opposed to vehicles that are run on natural gas. i don't think that we should make that determination. what i am suggesting though is that everything be advanced in a way that allows for the market

and the consumers to determine where we are going. renewable energy is the energy of the future, but in saying that, we have got to appreciate that we are not just going to be able to flip the switch and empower everything in this room off of solar or wind or whatever our renewable energy source is. it is an expensive transition. it is a timely transition, so how do we get there when we are sitting here you know, with the debt that we have? one of the things that i've proposed i have proposed is that we take, fence off some of the revenues that we derive from our fossil fuel, whether it is energy up north or whether it's energy in the appellations, but take some of what we are taking from the ground to help advance the r&d for renewables so that we can move in that direction in a meaningful way.

has right now, it is kind of dribs and drabs in dribs and drabs in a little bit of a tax credit here for maybe a couple of years, but in terms of any kind of funding certainty, there isn't any so i'm trying to help build it out and i think one way we can help tell the dowds using our traditional fuels, revenues from them, to help build out our renewables. >> you have the next one and okay, you just move the microphone up. >> he senator thank you for your time. i have a quick question relate to what your thoughts are in the clean energy standards. >> as you know senator bingaman has introduced his legislation on a clean energy standards. and i think you will be the first one to admit, he clearly did in the committee that the clean energy standard legislation that he has introduced is not going to be

moving this congress. i think what he wanted to do was put it out on the table for discussion, to move that, move the issue forward. he and i last year, after the president had talked about clean energy standards, we issued a request for comment from stakeholders, from folks in the industry. tell us what's clean energy standards would look like, and this was an effort that i was very willing to engage with with senator bingaman because of that it was important to try to understand. is this an area where we can find some consensus? we got some pretty incredible feedback and there was a great deal of work that went into it. it. what we didn't get back was real consensus about what it would look like, how it would work, and so when i realized that even within the industry, and even

within sectors within the industry, that there was not a level of consensus. i kind of pulled back. senator bingaman went ahead and introduced his legislation. i have concerns with primarily, the fact that the bingaman legislation doesn't allow for preemption of other standards that might be out there. i am concerned that what we have a tendency to do around here in washington is imposed a regulation, another one comes on, another one comes on and you have got an overlap that makes it not only complicated, but oftentimes impossible to get to your goal, so if we are going to advance a concept like a clean energy standard, i would like to make sure that we know what that definition is, but it's not further complicated by other

standards that have been put in place. i would like to preemption and there. >> okay, and you have the microphone. in the back there, the young lady. let's go to her after this one. >> thank you for that very interesting overview of madam senator. i do work in the area of green building sustainability and of course my question will follow, which is what are your thoughts about addressing demand issues and also energy conservation and efficiency? to what extent will does play a role in the policy discussions? >> and this goes to my point earlier about the shaheen portman legislation, which i think is just good stuff that helps move us towards greater conservation, greater efficiency and yet we are not able to move

that through the process. we need to go to those areas where the low-hanging fruit exists, and i think we should all recognize that the greatest savings when it comes to energy is not the technology that will build out some futuristic thing that is saving the energy that we currently have. we are pretty wasteful society when it comes to us as energy consumers. i don't think that we have done near enough, and so when i speak of and all of the above policy, in my mind it's a little bit of a three-legged stool, and you have got increase domestic production in the more traditional sources. you clearly have the lake that is the future, which is your renewable energy sources, but the third leg has to be conservation and efficiency. we can do so much more, and i

would like, i would like to get some of those pieces moving because i think they should be the easier pieces. unfortunately that has not proved out yet. >> okay, something happened. that was your question. let's go -- we have got the migrate there. who should be take the mic to over here? okay, right up here. >> hi senator. ryan tracy with dow jones newswire. i wanted to ask you about deployment for renewable energy. you mentioned the stimulus and obviously there has been some disappointment with the loan guarantee program which was supposed to support deployment and your plan for balance. you were talking about r&d but you did not mention the second d. i just wonder given what we have learned over the past few years where you see the governments role in aiding some of these technologies? >> i do believe there is a role

and perhaps that sets me apart from some of my other colleagues on capitol hill. i do believe that there is a role. and i think what we need to determine is, how long we play in this. when you think about some of the, some of the tax credits that are in play right now for some of our renewables, we have put them in place and they stay in place, and then when we talk about perhaps removing them or they are going to expire, there is a q&a cry, wait, wait, we can pull the rug out from underneath it. there has to be kind of a glide path out, and i think that is important to determine, but i do believe that whether it is loan guarantees, and unfortunately,

what we have seen this past year with some of the failures of the loan guarantee program, it it tainted i think that whole program to the point where some are suggesting the plug just needs to be pulled. i don't think that is the case. i think we need to make sure that the loan guarantee program operates as congress had intended, as it intended within the department, to allow for these nascent technologies to move forward, to actually get to the point where it's more than just propping up an idea, but that's been industry can take it and run with it. so, the timing on it is, there is no clear bright line, but i think right now we are not, we are not eating us help lead the

government should eat in not providing some greater parameters to kind of i guess the extent of the guarantee, the extent of the subsidies that are out there. we need to do a better job in that definition there. >> alright, we go here and -- >> deborah jacobson, and i have a follow-up question for the gentleman. i think you were talking about the valley of death, where you have the r&d done and then you ramp up commercialization. there's a lot of technology and other risks. your collie, senator bingaman, has proposed clean energy deployment. i don't know what your position is in terms of that. >> that is an initiative that senator bingaman and i have been

working on. i'm a co-sponsor with him of the bill. i think it makes sense. let's figure out how we can, how we can help to facilitate the r&d, make sure that it is and d. you have the arm and can you have the d but let's meet sure they are together. i think feet is one way that we have explored that might offer us some possibilities and granted that is again, that is a legislative initiative that we took up some time ago, kind of pre-solyndra if you will. and i wish that i could tell you that it had some momentum behind it. we are not seeing that right now. i still think it's a good idea. >> over here. >> the corollary to all the

prospects -- [inaudible] we are a nation of industry generating offshore wind energy. it is an expensive proposition. [inaudible] and the investors were not so comfortable doing that. i was wondering whether you think exceptions for offshore wind -- [inaudible] >> i think we need to critically evaluate what it is that we have in front of us, whether it's offshore wind which you are making the distinction between offshore and what we see on

land. geothermal is a situation that is not too dissimilar. we are told that well, the geothermal technology is a mature technology, and so because it is mature, we are not we are not going to make available certain of the incentives or the tax credits out there, and what we have found in alaska, where he have an enormous geothermal potential is that well, the way you may have approached it in another state is not exactly what we are trying to prove out, to access, in alaska. we are using different technologies but you can as it is geothermal, geothermal is geothermal. wind is wind so we have kind of got a one-size-fits-all mentality to it and it is something brand-new like algae, that is new, that somehow or other should fall into a different category. i think we need to be critical

as we assess where it is and -- in this process of development. >> i would like to get your thoughts on what the role of the federal government should be as up post -- >> i am looking for somebody different. >> i couldn't see who was talking there. >> i wanted to get your thoughts about the role of the federal government should be as opposed to the state realtor agencies on regulating the energy environment, specifically to hydraulic fracturing and perhaps other areas that i imagine are specific to alaska and who the more appropriate body? >> i've taken the position that with for instance hydraulic fracking that has been going on in our state for decades. out in texas they have been engaged in hydraulic fracking for 40 years. up in wyoming, the same in the state regulators have done a pretty good job.

and they have worked well and worked well with the industry in ensuring that safeguards are met. a level of disclosure is afforded. my concern is that again, we have an overlap piled on on overlap when we are talking about different regulations. the state regulators have been doing a good job. is it necessary for us to come in, us, the bln, the epa, and impose different layers of regulation on top of what the states are already doing, and appropriately doing? so as you are aware, the proposal came out some weeks ago now to review the fracking on federal lands.

different ban on state land, we understand that but again, it is what we are doing is imposing regulation that are further confiscating the process, because it's either duplicative or a level of redundancy that just doesn't make sense, are we have really helping here? and i think that is what we need to be looking to. so i said look, the states are doing a pretty good job and have been doing so for a long period of time. you do have certain areas of the country where fracking is -- and so the question is, what kind of disclosure is going on? what are the regulations but again, i am one who says to leave it with the state. >> lisa, thank you.

>> i think i am being booted off of the stage by my friend and colleague, ken salazar. >> no, you are being succeeded. thank you so much. [applause] the senate dabbling in this morning. the chambers expect legislation dealing with food stamps and conservation programs. majority leader harry reid has said this than i could spend

several weeks on the five-year policy though. the current farm bill expires at the end of december. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, help our lawmakers to remember today the great unseen cloud of witnesses who compass them about. may the memories of those who in every

age and generation sacrificed for freedom inspire our senators to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with you. give the members of this body the integrity to walk worthily of those in whose unseen presence they live. as they labor on capitol hill, infuse then with courage in danger, steadfastness in trials, and perseverance in difficulties. we pray in your fateful name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., june 6, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 415, s. 4320. the clerk: s. 3240, a bill to reauthorize agricultural

programs through 2017 and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. reid: we're now on a motion to proceed on the farm bill. i now ask unanimous consent that today at 4:00 p.m. the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 610, there will be 90 minutes for debate, that will be equally divided in usual forum. the senate will proceed to vote with with no intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider will be considered made and laid on the table, that there be no intervening action -- i'm sorry, looks like we have a little type owe graphical error here. there will be 90 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, and the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action on the nomination. there be no intervening action or debate, no further motion be

in order, and any statements printed in the record and the president notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? no objection being heard, so ordered. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of my esteemed colleague, the republican leader, the first hour will be equally divided with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. we hope to reach an agreement to begin consideration of the farm bill today. madam president, time when too many of the products we buy are made overseas, america can be satisfied that most of our food we eat is grown right here at home. american agricultural industry boasted a $42 billion trade surplus last year, greater than any other spector of our economy. our farmers are the most productive in the world supporting $136 billion worth of their yield last year. madam president, it's amazing

how states produce agricultural products. the state of new york isn't considered by most people to be an agricultural state but it is. the state of michigan is not considered by most people to be an agricultural state but it is. even some of the arid states in the western part of the united states produce products that are exported. in nevada, for example, alfalfa is exported. they make it into pellets and it's a needed commodity overseas. all over america the farm bill is important. our farmers are the most productive in the world exporting $136 billion worth of yield last year. and at a time of economic unsencht, the agricultural industry supports 16 million much-needed jobs in this country. so congress must give farmers the certainty they need to keep this industry thriving. i commend senators stabenow and roberts, the managers of this bill, for crafting a strong,

bipartisan bill. this measure will create jobs and cut subsidies, it includes important reforms of farm and food stamp programs more accountable and more defensible. with more farmers seeking new global markets for their products than ever before this bill supports rural farm jobs as well as urban manufacturing jobs. it will help new farmers especially those who served the dmupt the armed forces, access to capital they need and training to builds successful businesses. the legislation helps local farmers sell their products where they grow them, connecting farms, schools, and communities. and it saves $23 billion which we use to reduce this deficit that we have. i know there are a number of democrats and republican senators who wish to offer amendments to this legislation. i have confidence in the leadership of senator stabenow and roberts and look forward to working quickly and cooperatively to pass the bill that creates jobs, cuts subsidies and helps the deficit

while protecting american farmers. madam president, every day the dedicated officers of the united states capitol police force keep members of congress, our staffs, and millions of visitors from around the world who visit the capitol grounds each year, keep them safe. for the last six years this department has been run by chief of police phillip morse who led that effort. he spent half his life on the force and it's time, today he retires after 28 years serving and protecting the united states capitol. i thank him for his service and congratulate him on a job well done. mr. mcconnell: ,madam president,? the presiding officer: the republican leader. commons on the anniversary of d day i'm honored to recognize a group of veterans from my state of kentucky who have come to our

nation's capital to visit the world war ii memorial on the mall that they helped to inspire. thanks to the noble work of the honor flight program and leaders of its bluegrass chapter including brian duffy, these brave patriots along with their brothers in arms from the korean war will have the opportunity to see the national memphis built in -- memorials built in their honor today. over the years the bluegrass honor flight chapter has brought 1,100 veterans most from kentucky to washington for this purpose. this program provides transportation, lodging, and food for the veterans without honor flight most of these veterans would otherwise never be able to visit the capital or to see the world war ii memorial. i've been privileged to visit with groups of honor flight veterans before, and i'm pleased to report that i'll be meeting with that's group at their memorial as well.

my father served in world war ii, and it's an honor to shake hands with his contemporaries, hear their stories, and thank them for their service. america is forever indebted to the heroic members of the u.s. military who defended this great nation and fought for freedom and against tyranny in world war ii. they have truly earned the title the greatest generation. i also want to thank the honor flight program and brian duffy for their continued commitment to bringing kentucky's world war ii and korean war veterans to see their memorials. brian and the bluegrass chapter do what they do because they have great admiration and respect for our military veterans. i know my colleagues join me in saying that this united states senate shares that admiration and respect. be it for members of the greatest generation or for the current generation of brave volunteers who have served in afghanistan or iraq or are serving today elsewhere across

the world. madam president, i want to recognize each and every world war ii and korean war veteran from kentucky who is visiting the memorial in our nation's capital today, and i would ask unanimous consent that their names be included in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, on one other matter, today i'm introducing a resolution congratulating the u.s. chamber of commerce on defending and advancing free market principles for the past hundred years. for a century the chamber has helped business owners all across the country from the great depression to the current fiscal crisis our nation is struggling with today. the chamber and its member chambers and businesses have continued to find ways to help keep our economy growing and businesses hiring. in 1962, marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of the chamber, president kennedy

said the founding of the chamber in april of 1912 marked a turning point in the relations between government and business. this remains true to this day. when the chamber turned 70, president reagan joked i remember the day you started. and like good wine, you've grown better, not older. he then equipped the membership of the chamber of commerce of the united states is the only thing that's grown faster than the federal government, thank heaven. the free enterprise system is the backbone of the american economy and nobody embodies it more than the u.s. chamber of commerce. so on the year marking the 100th anniversary i along with my colleagues want to extend our heartfelt thanks and appreciation for all the work you do to help businesses grow and create jobs. through your efforts, millions of americans have been able to pursue and achieve the american dream. to the u.s. chamber of commerce thank you for your contribution

to society and congratulations on 100 years of representing and advocating for job creators across our country. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum quorum

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. i come to the floor about the uncertainties surrounding sequestration and the threat to our economy. the congressional budget office is forecasting the pending fiscal cliff facing our countries, that is the across the board spending cuts that will result from the expiration of current tax policy and the enactment of sequestration could

lead to recession. if they occur, there would be a 1.3% economic contraction during the first quarter of 2013. now, madam president, that would argue, i believe, for extending the existing tax rates. i think the uncertainty associated with the tax rates perhaps expiring at the end of the year, or at least businesses not knowing what's going to happen, is creating a real problem and a real cloud out there in the economy. i think it's really important that there be economic certainty for people in this country, particularly for investors, for our small businesses. so it seems to me at least that getting those tax rates extended would be a really important part of the solution. having said that, i also believe that we need tax reform for this country. we need comprehensive tax reform that will fuel economic growth. i think there is enormous potential for economic growth and job creation if in fact we can get to over hauling our tax

code in this country, making it more simple, for fair, more clear and lowering the rates and broadening the tax base. but until that happens, we need certainty, which means we need to get the existing tax rates extended. i hope we can do that sooner rather than later because i think the longer we wait the greater we put at risk our economy and what could happen if we don't act. that's one component of the fiscal cliff. obviously there are other components to that. under the budget control act the spending authority of most federal departments and agencies is going to be reduced on january 2 of 2013 as a result of the s. con. res. traeugs. the trying -- see con. res. ation. the triggered reduction is $1.2 trillion. the required reductions amount to $984 billion to be distributed over nine years.

$109.3 billion per year. if you look at it year by year, that's 54.7 billion in reductions necessary in both the defense and non-defense categories of the budget, starting on january 2 of 2013. it's expected those cuts will range between 7% and 9%, but we believe the administration needs a plan for implementing s. con. res. -- sequesteration. as one example of the conflicting statements coming out of the obama, defense secretary leon panetta sent a letter to senator mccain saying that the sequesteration would not impact war funding. in april the o.m.b. comptroller testified before the house budget committee that the issue of whether war funding would be reduced by the sequester was still being evaluated.

last week it was said war funding would in fact be kpwabgtd by -- be impacted by the sequester. congress needs a precise understanding from this administration as to the full effects of sequesteration on all accounts across the federal government including national security funding. that's why i've introduced a bill along with budget committee ranking member jeff sessions that would require the administration to bring some much-needed transparency to the scheduled across-the-board spending cuts. our legislation sent a bill 3228, the sequesteration transparency act would require the administration to submit to congress a detailed preview of the sequesteration required by the congressional budget office. it would require the president to submit a report to congress by july 9 of 2012 that includes an estimate of the sequesteration percentages and

amounts necessary to achieve the required reduction for each spending category on an account level. the administration's report would also be required to include any other data and explanations that enhance the public's understanding of the sequester and actions to be taken under it. this report will assist congress in its year-end legislative business including fiscal year 2013 appropriations and addressing the deep and unbalanced defense budget cuts that are expected under sequesteration which are in addition to the reductions carried out last august. of course we would not be in this situation, madam president, had the national passed a serious budget over the last three years that addressed tax and entitlement reform. the senate's failure to produce a budget year after year has left us with a budget control act. now the budget control act is the law of the land. while i am certainly disappointed that the president and the joint select committee on deficit reduction failed to reach an agreement to bring down

our deficits in the long term, the cuts to national defense that are scheduled to go into effect are particularly troubling. the president's own defense secretary warned that the sequester -- and i quote -- "would hollow out the force and inflict serious damage to our national defense." that's from the president's own defense secretary. yet after repeated requests from the house and the senate, the administration refused to provide even the most basic details about the cuts required by the sequester. there's a great deal of uncertainty regarding skwes sequestration and the tax cuts that would occur. at a time when our economy grows at a sluggish pace, the last thing we need coming out of washington is more uncertainty. job creators are concerned about the pending fiscal cliff. if congress does not act before the election to deal with these issues, the economy will suffer

from this uncertainty in the coming months. the legislation i've introduced along with senator sessions requires the administration to share with congress and with the american people their plan for exactly how the s. con. res. -- sequesteration will be cared out. it is straightforward legislation and is something i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work to ensure that this plan is shared with the congress and with the american people. madam president, we have, as everybody knows, a big pileup occurring at the end of the year, the sequesteration with the tax cuts that will occur, capital gains rates, dividend rates, the death tax, all these things pile up, the debt limit increase, all these things happen at a time that will create incredible amounts of uncertainty in our economy. the best thing that we can do for the american people, for our job creators, for investors, for our small businesses is to provide as much certainty as is

possible going in to the end of this year. it seems to me at least that that starts with ensuring that we have a plan coming out of the administration that specifically clarifies this sequesteration would be implemented so that congress can react accordingly hopefully before the end of the year and hopefully sometime in the next few months, perhaps as a part of our appropriations process this year. and with regard to the tax increases, i would make the same argument. the same argument actually that former president bill clinton has been making and that is we need to extend these tax rates, we create too much economic uncertainty out there by having this cloud out there on the horizon and that that is a real warning sign, i think, to us. and it's a reminder that we get on a regular basis, frankly, for the most part on a daily basis when we talk to small businesses in our hone states about the importance -- home states about the importance of addressing the tax, regulatory, spending and debt issues before the end of

the year when this big pileup would occur. so i would argue and plead with my colleagues to work together on the sequesteration issue to make sure it doesn't have the devastating impacts on our national security budget and that combined with the tax increases, doesn't have the devastating impact on our economy that is being predicted by the congressional budget office, which, as i said, has pointed out that if these things all happen at the end of the year could cost us 1.3% of economic growth, which according to the president's own economic advisorses, means about 1.3 million jobs for american workers. we already have chronic high unemployment, 40 consecutive months of unemployment above -l%. we have a sluggish, anemic economy. the one thing we shouldn't pile on top of that is all this uncertainty with regard to taxes and with regard to regulations, with regard to what's going to happen regarding sequesteration at the end of the year. so, again, madam president, this

bill simply is, does not address in substance how we would change that, but it merely requests and requires the administration to provide to the congress and to the american people a clear plan about how they intend to implement sequesteration in hopes that we might be able to make some necessary changes to ensure that the defense budget isn't gutted and that these adverse impacts on the economy are not felt by the american people and by our small businesses. i hope my colleagues will support this legislation and that we can get a vote on it very soon and that we can get the administration acting in a way that will inform not only us as members of congress, but also the american public. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. barrasso: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: yesterday vice president biden and other obama administrations hosted taunt, an opportunity to highlight the transparency of college costs. they said these schools were

committed to providing key information financial information to all of their students starting next year. madam president, once again transparency took a back seat to politics. in fact, the white house, the white house failed, failed to level with college students about important financial information including how the president's health care law is going to make it harder for many students in terms of their ability to get health insurance through their universities. earlier this week the real story came out, and i will tell you, madam president, it's discouraging. i continue to come to the floor week after week with a doctor's second pitbull opinion -- second opinion about the mchealth care law because i think the health care law is bad for patients, the providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of the patients, terrible for our taxpayers. i don't think i realized i started doing these second opinions it was also going to be

terrible for students going to college. take a look at this, these unintended consequences that have come out of this health care law, but i will tell you on monday national news reports showed that the coverage requirements and in the president's health care law, the mandated requirements in the health care law, of a certain level of government-approved coverage, well, it's causing colleges all across the country to drop insurance coverage for their students. and i'd like to explain, madam president, exactly how this works. as members of this body who voted for this on the other side of the aisle, members of this body recall, the health care law eliminates annual and lifetime benefits for insurance plans. many colleges offer their students an opportunity for a limited benefit policy to give students access to affordable health insurance coverage that actually is something that a college student might need, might benefit from, may help with. you know, these are the same

benefit plans that have been popular with many unions across the country. the plans were so popular that the administration issued over 1,700 waivers which impacted over four million americans, these washington waivers ensured people who got their insurance through certain corporations and unions wouldn't lose the coverage they had, in the lead-up to the full implementation to the health care law. after half of these waivers were granted to individuals who received their insurance through their union so these individuals wouldn't lose their coverage during the time when the unions were saying this health care law is too expensive for us. we don't want to live under these mandates. we can't afford it. well, the colleges are finding the same situation but unlike the unions, the colleges aren't eligible to apply for these special administration waivers from the health care law.

so students across the country are suffering the consequences. this year because of the president's health care law, these students are not going to be able to purchase or afford coverage through their schools. schools are faced with two options: one is raise premiums dramatically, drastically or just don't offer the health insurance programs that students like, their parents like, the universities like to provide, too bad, the president of the united states and the democrats who voted for this health care law essentially have said. so let's give an example from new york state. the state university of new york in plattsburg offered students in the past, $440 a year. next year, policies will cost anywhere between 1,300 and $1,600 per student her year. that's an increase, almost 400%. why? because the students end up

paying for a loft insurance they don't need, don't want, possibly can't afford yet the president mandates that they get this high level of insurance coverage, even though it's something that the people at the university think their students don't need. universities don't have a choice. the president makes those decisions. not the president of the university, the president of the united states. the university of puget sound in washington was able to offer its students insurance last year for $165. insurance that they felt was helpful to the students. next year to comply with the president's health care law mandated high levels of coverage, they estimate a policy will now cost between $1,500 and $2,000. so since the obama administration's mandates were so expensive what's the university of piewjed sound going -- puget sound going to do? they announced they won't be offering any insurance coverage to any students next year.

the decision made by the university. it's clear the president's health care law leaves many students with two bad choices. they can be forced to pay vastly increased premiums or basically will lose access to coverage altogether. now, the new development flies completely in the face of the president's promise. the president said if you like what you have, you can keep it. let's specifically go to the president's exact promise which was -- quote -- "no matter how we reform health care, the president of the united states said, we will keep this promise. if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. he went on to say if you like your health care plan, you'll able to keep your health care plan, period, he said. he then said no one will take it away no matter what. he said my view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what's broken and build on what works. here we are, madam president, over two years later, we

continue to witness the amongst breaking this -- the obama administration breaking this very specific promise. now we add college students to the long list of people who found out that the reality doesn't match president obama's rhetoric. at a time when students across the nation face increasing division tuition costs and oblique -- a bleak job market, now they have to deal with losing their health insurance. each day it becomes more obvious that the obama economy which includes the president's health care law has made life worse for millions of americans. it can't continue, madam president. if the supreme court doesn't completely repeal this health care law, congress needs to do it. republicans are committed to repealing this law and replacing it with step-by-step reforms. we will continue to help americans of all ages work to get the care they want from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president, i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i just left a meeting a few feet away from here of the leaders of some of

the american colleges and universities. they came to brief us on a challenge that we face across america, that we had better be aware of. it is the growing student loan debt. just in october of a year ago, student loan debt in america surpassed credit card debt. it is now $1 trillion. more students are going more deeply into debt, many of them into debt they can never repay. student loan debt is different than other debt. it is different because you cannot discharge it in bankruptcy, which means it is a debt you will carry for a lifetime. imagine that you're 19, 20 years old, that you've been told as long as you've been on this earth that education is the key to the future, and you're sitting across the table from a financial counselor who says you've just been accepted at this college. all you need to do is sign up right here for a loan. what's the natural instinct?

of course it's to sign on the dotted line. i'm doing what i was told to do. i'm going to the best school i can get into. i'm tkpw-r to borrow -- i'm going to borrow the money and make it happen and my life will be successful and i'll pay the money back. the formula is right but there are problems. if you drop out of school, you end up with no diploma. just debt. if you go to a bad school, you end up with a worthless diploma and debt. if you end up, unfortunately, in some aspects of life, occupations or professions, it may take you decades to pay off a debt. the average student loan debt is about $25,000 once someone has completed four years of education. we've asked students across illinois, cross the nation to tell us their stories and the debts go much higher for four years of education. many students find themselves in an impossible predicament where they literally can't get on with

their lives, can't find a job and unfortunately still stuck with the debt. they're lucky, incidentally, if they're dealing with a federally student loan guarantee debt, so-called stafford loan, because that's 3.4% interest. there are ways that you can have that debt forgiven and consolidated. it's a flexible type of debt guaranteed by the federal government. but if you step over that and get into a private student loan, hang on tight. the inthaits go from 3.4% to the heavens. 18%, credit card rate debts -- i mean interest rates are not uncommon when it comes to these private loans and students finds themselves being swallowed by debt they can't repay that is unfortunately compounded and just goes from bad to worse to even worse. students i've run into thought they were doing the right thing. they went to some of these worthless for-profit schools. you can hardly avoid them. you get on the internet and

punch in a search engine for college or university, hang on tight, you're about to be inundated with ads for for-profit schools that tell you just how easy it is to get a college diploma. all you have to do is sign up. they used to run an ad here on one of the television stations in washington that showed a pretty young girl and she was lounging on her bed with her laptop computer and she says i'm going to college in my pajamas. that kind of a come-on that suggests you can get a worthy college diploma through a for-profit school, unfortunately, lures many of these kids into a mountain of debt and worthless diplomas from this for-profit industry, the most heavily subsidized private business in america. 90% of the money that for-profit schools have in revenue comes fright the federal government. heck, they ought to have their employees join a federal employees union for that matter

because 90% of their revenue comes right out of the federal treasury. students end up with the debt and the worthless diploma. last week the federal reserve bank of new york quarterly report on household debt found that student loan debt hit $904 billion in the first quarter of 2012 up two from $241 billion just ten years ago. that's a 275% increase. since the same period in 2003. the consumer financial protection bureau which mean people on the other side of the aisle would like to put out of business, the only leading consumer protection bureau in the federal government, estimates that outstanding student loan debt may be even higher, up to a trillion dollars. students continue to pile on the debt even as america, most americans cut back on other forms of credit such as mortgage and credit cards. according to a senior economist at the new york federal reserve bank, it remains the only form of consumer debt to substantially increase since the peak of household debt in 2008.

the hold just gets -- the hole just gets deeper for the students and the families borrowing money for higher education. students are graduating with massive debt and having a very difficult time paying it back. delinquencery rates for student loans are higher than for mortgages or automobile loans. every week i hear from students drowning in debt, i don't mean just recent graduates. some are in their 30's and 40's, even older still paying off stones or private student loans they cosigned for their children or grandchildren. student loan debt has serious consequences for families and for our economy. in a recent survey of college graduates by rutgers university, 40% of the participants said they delayed making a major purchase like a home or car because of student debt. more than a quarter of those surveyed put off continuing their education or had moved in with relatives to save money to

pay their student loans. private student loans don't come with the same consumer protections and payment plans that federal loans offer. senator tom harkin of hay iowa, chairman of the education committee, introduced a bill with me to help families understand the difference between the federal student loans and private student loans. we call it the know before you owe private student loan act. it would require private student loan lenders to confirm that the potential borrower's enrollment status and cost of attendance. the bill would require the institutions to counsel students about the difference between federal and private student loans. many students just don't know the difference. the come-on is we've only got one sheet of paper you need to fill out, you'll get a private loan, or do you want to go through five sheets of paper for the federal government? this is easier. easier but a debt that's much more serious for you in years to come. last week the attorneys general

from 22 states wrote to members of the house and senate asking that congress fix the so-called 90-10 loophole. the 90-10 rule as it is currently written requires for-profit colleges to receive at least 10% of their revenue from something other than the federal government. 10%. but current law considers federal sources only those funds from the department of education's title 4 federal financial aid program which includes pell grants and federally guaranteed student loans. other federal subsidies for students such as g.i. bill funds and the department of defense tuition assistance aren't counted. the attorneys general across america once again are ahead of congress. they recognize that including g.i. bill and d.o.d. funds will eliminate the powerful incentive the for-profit colleges have to recruit veterans and active military in order to comply with the 90-10 rule. holly petraeus is the wife of

general petraeus, a true american hero. she has stood by his side, dearly loves the military and their families. she works for the consumer financial protection bureau, her specialty is to find those rip-off institutions that are going after veterans to try to soak up their g.i. bill benefits for worthless education. how did we reach this point? why are we at this moment in time where we're facing the student loan debt bomb? years ago, with widespread reports of waste, fraud and abuse in the for-profit college sector, college created the the 85-15 rule to weed out fraudulent schools that relied on taxpayer dollars. it said the a school could take in month more than 85% of revenue from the federal government. the other 15 had to come from other sources. it worked, and many of the worst schools fortunately closed. in 1998, the rule was loosened

to 90-10. 90% federal subsidy. now we see that we need to return to the original intent of the law and crack down on these for-profit schools that are taking advantage of veterans, service members, and students across the board. in january, senator harkin and i introduced the protecting our students and taxpayers act, the post act, that will make several changes to the 90-10 rule. to better protect the students and our taxpayer dollars, the post act would reinstate the original 85-15 ratio and the bill would change the definition of what's considered federal revenue. this may sound like bureaucratic gobble debook gook but let's get to the bottom line. if you rely on the federal treasury for 90% of your revenue to exist as a school there is a serious question about where you're a we'll -- whether you're a real school. if the students make no contribution or 10% toward their education, then frankly what

you're doing is just milking the federal treasury to keep the lights on at your school. i might add that these for-profit schools are highly profitable. some of the biggest investment counselors and managers in america invest in these schools because they're money machines. it just brings in money directly with the federal government with no guarantee that the students are going to end up with an education. the numbers i return to time and again tell the story. 10% of the students finishing high school, 10%, end up in in for-profit schools. 10%. yet these for-profit schools eat up 25% of all federal aid to education. they're sucking in the pell grants and the stafford loans. and then hang on, they have a student loan default rate almost twice the level of other clemtion and universities. what does that tell you? they have come up with an economic model which reaches deep in the treasury to bring in money to keep the lights on and

to pay their c.e.o.'s very, very generous salaries. they are also of course loaning money to students and those students are defaulting, unable to repay their student loans at twice the rate of other colleges and universities. now, you would say to yourself, well, senator, if that's the case, why don't you do something about it? the problem is, the for-profit school industry in america is one of the most politically wired industries in this country. they have friends in high places, and it's very difficult to get reform legislation through the house or the senate when they are so politically connected. yet senator harkin and i believe it's worth the effort and we're going to ask our colleagues to join us in that effort. what's worse is that students are aggressively recruited to attend these colleges, lured into taking out massive amounts of debt and may not graduate. think about that. a study published by the education sector shows the

borrowers who drop out are more than four times more likely than those who graduate to default on their college loans because they're more likely to be unemployed and earn less when they do get a job. the dropout rates rose across all kinds of clemtion but the biggest increases were kinds in the for-profit four-year institutions where a staggering 54% of those who had borrowed to pursue a bachelor's degree dropped out of school, more than half. the study shoadz that 16.8% of dropouts defaulted on their loans compared to 3.7% of those who graduated. what does that make to these for-profit universities? they got their money. alexander brooks recently contacted my office about his student debt. alexander is from normal, illinois, graduated in 2006 with a degree in computer networking from i.t.t., a for-profit institution. alex never got a job in his field. he drives a school bus to pay

his rent, even though he has this degree, so-called degree in computer networking. he said he'd like to get married to his longtime girlfriend but doesn't want to have her share in the burden of his student loan debt. when asked about the quality of education he received from i.t. --, i.t.t. which you'll find advertised on television every time you turn it on, he said "i.t.t. fell short of preparing me for what happens after the graduation. although the school provided a degree, the program did not provide any of the necessary certifications needed to get a job in the computer field." alex would like to go back to school but he can't borrow any more money. when he graduated six years ago from i.t.t., a for-profit school, his total line balance was $40,000. when he graduated. six years later, his balance is $50,000. six years of payments, falling further and further behind. his private student loans have interest rates up to 9.25%,

almost double the federal student loan rate. alex isn't alone. many of his fellow students from i.t.t. have the same trouble repaying their loan. i.t.t.'s three-year cohort default rate is over 29%. that means that within three years of entering repayment status, almost a third of students have already defaulted. in 2009, i.t.t. received 85.8% of all of its revenue, this for-profit school, from the federal student aid programs. it was the third largest recipient of g.i. bill funds, receiving $99 million in the school year 2010-2011. if giempletd bill funds and federal aid were counted i.t.t. would be at or close to receiving 100% of its revenue from the federal government, totally federally subsidized. student aid money is just about all that keeps this institution alive, running, generating profits, paying handsome

salaries no 0 to those who own it. what do the taxpayers get in return? more americans with student loan debt that they'll never be able to pay off. that's not a good deal for taxpayers or students. high student loan debt is not limited to for-profit college students. students at private nonprofit institutions graduate with an average of about $26,000 in debt. students who graduate from public institutions graduate with an average of $15,600 in debt. what i say back home in illinois, i hope some will listen to carefully. education is critical for a student or person to succeed. i encourage people to pursue it. but go to the low cost alternative if you haven't made up your mind or don't have a clear goal in front of you that is reasonable. go to your community college. start there. learn what it means to go to college. you can do it at an affordable cost in your neighborhood, in your town.

and then progress from the community college level to the right place for you. the students who sign up for worthless for-profit schools or a heavy load of debt may find themselves in a terrible situation and it's impossible for them to pursue a higher education. we have to do something to control the cost of postsecondary education, to ease the burden of student debt and crack down on the aggressive recruiting practices used by forprofit clemtion by closing the 90-10 loophole. congress should start by coming to an agreement on the interest rate hike that will prevent the rates on subsidized up student loans from doubling. let me close because i see my colleague from rhode island who is here. july 1, the interest rate on federal loans, stafford loans, will double. from 3.4% to 6.8%. for a student borrowing $20,000 over the course of a four-year education, it means at 6.8% as opposed to 3.4%, they will be

paying back $24,000 instead of $20,000. why do we want to dig this hole any deeper for students across america? we have put an alternative on the floor to keep the interest rate low and, unfortunately, the other side has objected. i hope that we can work out a bipartisan, reasonable way to keep interest rates on student loans at a lower level. we owe it to these families and to these students. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, let me first thank the distinguished senator from illinois for his determined efforts and my senior colleague in this body, senator jack reed, for his determined efforts to try to get to a resolution that will prevent the student loan interest rates from doubling. i'm here today to speak about another problem in which something very important to ordinary americans is also being

jammed up as a result of obstruction and intransigence. and in my case it is the highway bill. we had a march 31 deadline, the house and the senate, to get a highway bill done. the national did its job. we -- the senate did its job. the house did not do its job. they failed to get a highway bill done. let me point out that we've been doing highway bills in congress back since the eisenhower administration, and this is not rocket science. so it is telling that the body at the other end of this building could not get a highway and bridge bill done by the march 31 deadline. so what did they do? they extended it and took us to

conference on the senate bill. now, let's say a word about the senate bill. the senate bill is very heart to kreut -- very hard to criticize. people sometimes criticize bills around here because they get jammed through. there isn't enough time. there aren't enough amendments. it's not bipartisan. none of those criticisms apply to the senate bill. the senate highway bill came out of my environment and public works committee thanks to the leadership of senator boxer and chairman inhofe with the unanimous support of every republican and every democrat. it came to the floor. we had a wide open process here on the floor. i think nearly 40 amendments were accepted either in floor votes or by agreement. everybody had their chance. everybody had their day. and the net result of all of this was that the bill cleared out of the senate with 75 senators on record supporting it. that's a pretty impressive majority around here. we have a 75-22 senate bill that has the support of the chamber of the commerce, the association

of manufacturers and the pavers, the support of the labor unions, the environmental community. there is really nothing to criticize about it either substantively or in terms of the process by which it was adopted. and yet our colleagues on the house side won't accept the bipartisan senate bill. they have got it bottled up in this conference. and the reason that i'm on the floor today is that we're being told now that the house is going to ask for another extension past the end of june to continue to dawdle and stall the bipartisan highway bill. now, what's the effect of that? what is the effect of dawdling and stalling the bipartisan senate highway bill? the effect is loss of jobs. the presiding officer is from new york. i'm from rhode island. the distinguished senator from utah is here on the floor. all of us have a common

situation in our states, which is winter. in winter it is really hard to build and repair highways and bridges. there is a summer construction season. and as we dawdle and as we delay, and as the house jams up the bipartisan senate highways bill, that summer season gets away. we are now at the point where my director of transportation in rhode island, mike lewis, says he had 97 jobs on his roster to be done in this summer construction season. and if we can't get this done earlier than when we anticipate doing it now at the end of june, 40 of those projects drop off the roster. 40 projects. and all the jobs associated with them are lost. rhode island is a small state. those numbers are going to echo eastward and northward across the country in job loss this summer because of delay by the

house of a bipartisan senate highways bill. this is real jobs. it is not just me making this observation and not just the rhode island director of transportation. the standard & poor's global credit portal ratings direct service has put out a publication increasingly unpredictable federal funding could stall u.s. transportation infrastructure projects. they say the following: "with the march 31 expiration looming, congress passed on march 29 yet another extension to fund u.s. highway programs." that's the extension that the house forced on it. we were ready. we had a bill by march 31. it continues, "this latest continuing resolution provides funding through june 30, 2012" we're about to get to the end of that and that's the extension the house is threatening to accede. "as construction season begins in the northern half of the

country, this continuing uncertainty in funding could force states to delay projects rather than risk funding changes or political gridlock come july." that is exactly what we are seeing. as they said here, the political gridlock in washington, d.c. and the doubt surrounding federal funding are making it difficult for issuers, bond issuers, capital issuers throughout infrastructure sector to define long-term plans for funding necessary capital projects. if we get this turned around, then what happens? according to standard & poor's, once a long-term authorization is approved, we believe it will provide an impetus for transportation agencies to reconsider high-priority projects that had been shelved because of lack of funding. we can put people to work in this country. we can put people to work in this country on roads and bridges and highways, something that every american understands. we can do it under a bipartisan senate bill that has the support

of everybody from the business community to the labor community to the environmental community to perhaps obviously the highway construction community. but the house of representatives, which couldn't pass a highway bill, which couldn't pass a highway bill, is jamming us in this endless conference. i don't know if it is their intention to knock out these jobs in this preelection period. i don't know if they just can't get their house in order over there to do the basic leg work of passing a highway bill. but as we approach the end of this month, as we approach this second deadline which looks like they're going to miss again. i will urge my colleagues, let us hold their feet to the fire. there is no excuse for not passing the bipartisan senate highway bill that is widely supported and that will create or defend nearly three million jobs in this country.

2.9 million, to use the exact number that has been identified with this bill. so, i think it's really important that we stick to our guns on this one. in rhode island, we have projects like highway 95, where it comes through the city of providence. it comes through as a bridge. it is a raised highway. if you go underneath that bridge to, say, drive into the back spwrepbs of the -- entrance of the providence place mall or to look where the highway goes over the amtrak rails that connect the northeast corridor, what do you see? you see wooden blanks that have been laid between the beams so that the highway falling in doesn't land on cars underneath, doesn't land on amtrak trains or train tracks underneath. this is a project that needs to be rebuilt. it needs to be rebuilt now. it is connected to where state routes 6 and 10 come in and connect to 95. you go under state route 6 and

state route 10, as senator reid and i did recently with the mayor of providence and with the transportation director, and you see that those highways are propped up by wooden supports. you see that pieces of the metal infrastructure have crumbled and fallen off on to the ground. this is highway work that needs doing. this is not bridges to nowhere. every american driving across our bumpy roads knows we have work to do, and i call on my colleagues in the house to quit dawdling, to let this conference go. if they don't have an answer, if they can't pass a highway bill, if they can't do the basic leg work of governance to do something as simple as the highway bill, then get out of the way. at least get out of the waeup and let the bipartisan -- out of the way and let the bipartisan widely supported highway bill go.

thank you, madam president. i yield to the distinguished colleague from utah. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: thank you. the bad news does keep coming. europe is in dire straits and now spain threatening the fewer of the continent's economic union. there is real concern this debt-fueled contagion in europe will undermine our economy as well. and our economy cannot take too many more hits. the unemployment rate went back up to 8.2% last month, only 69,000 new net payroll jobs were created. that is barely keeping up with population growth, and it's hardly the type of robust job growth that will be the foundation of a lasting and meaningful economic recovery. we should have seen this coming. the minutes of the federal reserve's most recent policy making meeting makes numerous mention of uncertainty surrounding fiscal policy and that those uncertainties are a

risk to the economic outlook. fed policy-makers noted that -- quote -- "they generally saw the u.s. fiscal situation also as a risk to the economic outlook. if agreement is not reached on a plan for the federal budget, a sharp fiscal tightening could occur at the start of 2013." that's the fed policy-makers. they concluded that -- quote -- "uncertainty about the trajectory of future fiscal policy could lead businesses to deter -- to defer hiring and investment." and uncertainty about the fiscal environment could hold back both household spending on durable goods and business capital expenditures. unquote. yesterday the congressional budget office reminded us yet again what the consequences will be to our economy if we fail to get our debt under control.

according to one of their analysis, analyses, absent serious reform of entitlement spending programs -- quote -- "federal debt would grow rapidly from its already high level exceeding 90% of g.d.p. in 2022, after that debt as a share of g.d.p. would exceed its historical peak of 109% by 2026 and it would approach 200% in 2037. and that's an optimistic view. the impact of this multiplying debt will be a gross national product that is reduced by 4.5% in 2027 and 13.5% in 2037. in other words, unless president obama and his allies in the senate get to work, americans face a future of fewer jobs, flat or shrinking incomes and loss of opportunity. and the sad truth is, as this

chart shows, the president's allies have not gotten to work. we've had a hearing on tax extenders, but none on the a.m.t. patch, the alternative minimum tax patch; none on the death tax reform. and we did have a hearing to prevent the 2013 tax hikes. but we've had no markup on any of those. we've had no floor consideration of any of those. and yet, these are all extremely, extremely important. well, it was no surprise therefore that when former president clinton stated yesterday that we were still in a recession. economists might say that is not technically accurate, but it is certainly how most americans feel. what did come as a surprise, however, were president clinton's remarks on tax-mageddon, the fiscal cliff that the nation faces at the end

of this year. at least yesterday it sounded like his view was that we should do a complete 180 and race away from this cliff extending in full the tax relief extended, or enacted by president bush and extended by president obama in 2010. several weeks ago 41 senate republicans made a similar request of the senate's majority leader, senator reid. this fiscal cliff is unquestionably contributing to our fiscal crisis and slowing the economy by creating enormous uncertainty for taxpayers and businesses. absent action to extend this tax relief, americans will be hit with a $310 billion tax increase next year. next year alone. 26 million middle-income families will owe $92 billion in alternative minimum tax when filing their returns one year from now. a family of four earning $50,000

will get hit with a $2,183 tax hike. a small business owner will face a top marginal tax rate hike of 17%. that's catastrophic. the number of farmers who will face the death tax will rise by 2,200%. the number of small business owners who will face the death tax will rise by 900%. there should be no higher priority for the president and the congress than addressing these tax increases. yesterday president clinton seemed to agree, arguing that we should act now, not after the elections, to avoid the fiscal cliff. at a minimum, he concluded that a temporary extension of current tax relief was in order. quote -- to quote former president clinton -- "they will probably have to put everything off until early next year. that's probably the best thing to do right now," unquote.

now, i understand that the minority leader of the senate and the speaker of the house have now called for a one-year extension during which time we should do tax reform. and that makes sense. and i'm committed, as the ranking member on the senate finance committee, to do ts tax reform and hopefully bring both sides together for once in a long time to do what is in the best interest of this country. now, president clinton further argued, quote, "what i think we need to do is to find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff. to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now and then deal with what's necessary in the long-term debt-reduction plan as soon as they they can, which presumably will be after the election." unquote. now, channeling gilda radder i , president clinton tells us,

never mind. president clinton knew what he was saying. one thing i can say, knowing him as well as i do, he's a very smart man. he was making an elementary point, one that the president, president obama, seemed to dprea with when he was -- seemed to agree with when he was not running for election on a platform. president clinton not wanting to further undermine our economy recommended a short-term extension of all the tax relief. now, that is precisely what president obama agreed to at the end of 2010. and given our tepid economic growth and job creation and the threat from europe, common sense would dictate a similar course today. certainly if the alternative is a $300 billion tax increase, which it is.

but today president obama is running for reelection and tax relief for the so-called rich would undermine his message of wealth redistribution. failure to extend this tax relief, though, is not an option. just this morning another obama support others, a former director for the economic council, larry summers, said, "the real risk to this economy is on the side of slowdown. that means we've got to make sure we don't take gasoline out of the tank at the end of this year. that's got to be the top priority." unquote. the former director of president obama's offpresidentobama's offd budget concluded that what he estimates to be ad a $500 billin tax increase would be so large that -- quote -- "the economy would be thrown back into a

recession. requestings "unquote. according to "the economist" the congressional budget office has found that the combined effects of the sequester and expiring tax relief would add up to a 3.6% of g.d.p. in fiscal year 2013. in a $15 trillion economy, that would be a hit to g.d.p. of $540 billion, which would surely tip us toward recession and even more job losses. so the question that the people of utah and citizens around the country are asking themselves is, what's the holdup in if extending this tax relief is essential to providing families and businesses with the certainty and security necessary for economic growth, why are senate democrats refusing to take it up? and why is the president not pushing for immediate action to avoid this fiscal cliff in let me suggest an answer. the president wants to drag this out until after this election.

even if that means months of additional pain for america's families and a real hit to our economy, it will serve its long-term goal, a goal that he dares not announce until after the election. president obama does not want the precedent of extending this tax relief for everyone because ultimately his liberal base does not want it extended for anyone. the president and his advisors know that our debt is unsustainable. their base will not allow for any serious changes to spending policy, and tax increases on the wealthy alone are not adequate, and they know this -- are not adequate to get our fiscal house in order. the only solution, the one that pennsylvania avenue is loathe to discuss openly, are tax increases on everybody. now, this is met by writing last year in "the new york times."

"if democrats are serious about reversing the policy of the bush years, then they will probably have to be willing to make a case for eliminating all the tax cuts, not just those for the wealthiest americans. and they may have to come up with some kind of more comprehensive plan for modernizing the entire tax code murein order to persuade voterst if even taxes go up, they might still come out ahead." from "the washington post," "we cannot fund anything close to the government's commitments if we let only the bush tax cuts for income over $25,000 expire." though he is now cerna per sewna nongrata, president clinton was recommending this solution of tax increases for all. "this is just me now," this is

president clinton. "this is just me now. i am not speaking for the white house. you could tax me at 100% and you wouldn't balance the budget. we are all going to have to contribute to this. if middle-class peoples wages wering up again, i don't think they would object to going back to tax rates from when he was president." with due respect to our former president, i do think that he was speaking for the white house and i do think that most americans would object to a tax hike. that is why president obama has decided to lay low rather than lead. the american people are not going to accept this. we live in a republic, and it is fundamentally illegitimate on an issue of this magnitude for a person running for president of the united states to put these decisions off until a lame-duck session of congress when he could no longer be held to account by the american people. it is not only an economic

imperative that we extend this tax relief, it is demanded by our constitutional commitment to representative democracy. to borrow from justice scalia, "the american people love democracy and the american people are not fools." and if the president and his campaign team think that they can punt this issue until the fall, they are sorely mistaken. the american people will voice their displeasure with his failure to lead in november. president clinton got it right the first time yesterday. the fiscal cliff must be addressed now. we cannot wait until later in the year. our economy is struggling, american families are treading water, we have tried it their way for almost four years. we've tried an $850 billion stimulus, we have tried obamacare, which was also supposed to be a jobs program, we've tried dodd-frank.

it is time to try something else. there is no greater jobs program that congress and the president could pursue than a permanent extension of the tax relief signed by presidents bush and obama. it would provide enormous confidence to america's businesses and families at a time when confidence is sorely needed. this issue is not going away. and i look forward working with my colleagues to pass tax relief for all americans sometime this summer. we all realize that we're in election mode. maybe i realize that more than most. but the fact of the matter is, we can't punt this anymore. we can't kick it down the road. we're going to have to find a means and a way whereby we stem this tax relief and then extend the next year working on tax reform, hopefully a bipartisan tax reform bill, that everybody here can support.

i understand why the majority leader and other members of the democratic party are basically making it -- making sure that democrats don't have a rough in the meantime this election -- a rough time in this election but basically bringing up things be, like they did yesterday, when we have three pieces of legislation already enacted that provide equal pay for equal work for women. all we have to do is get this administration to enforce those three bills. it was brought up for political reasons. we all know that here in this body. but i guess the people -- some people out there will buy off on that even though it is clearly a shavment busham. but so far this year, just about everything that the majority leader has brawp brought up forn behalf of democrats is to protect the sitting 23 democrats who are up for reelection this year. now, i don't blame the leader for wanting to protect his

fellow democrats. that's, after all, maybe part of the job of a leader. on the other hand, there are things that may be even more important, like the future well fai-- like the future welfare of our economy, like jobs. like jobs that are not being created right now. not being created because we have no creators in the white house. it takes a president -- it takes a president to lead on these issues. i would suggest to president obama that he'd have a much better chance of reelection if he would lead out on some of these issues, and if he would go along with putting off these tax cuts and committing democrats and republicans to coming up with a bipartisan reform of this

awful, despicable, unworkable tax cut. you know, it might be one of the few ways that we can really bring people together. it might be one of the few ways that we can really turn this country around in the short-term. i think the minority leader and the speaker of the house have something here. we literally ought to do this and make it the main focal point of our existence as members of the united states senate and members of the u.s. house of representatives. if we do this, we might even find that we can get along again. we might even find that we can work together. we might own find that there's less politics, although there will be plenty of that in any tax reform bill. we might find that it's fun again to be around here, rather than both sides at each other'ss

throats all the time. and we might even find that the president can lead for a change, which would be a pleasant change from what i've seen over the last number of years. i happen to like the president. i don't agree with him. yes, i would like to replace him, but i like him personally. i really believe if the president would lead here, would make this a focal poirnghts he'e this a focal point, he'd have a better chance in this election. not that i want him to be successful, but at least he'd have a better chance. because the american people deep down feel that nothing is being done by the white house, by this body, and throughout the count country. i kind of yearn for the day when democrats and republicans can

really get along with each other again, when we really put the country first rather than reelection first, when we really look at each other and say, you know, i like him or her; i think i can work with them. it would be a wonderful thing if we would do that, and this is a pretty fair suggestion: keep the tax cuts alive until we reform the tax -- this bloated, unworkable, stupid tax bill -- or tax law -- code, i guess would be a better way of putting it. i actually believe that it could be a way of making us all work together, making us all do so in the best interests of our country p. wouldn't that be wonderful?

well, i hope that my colleagues on both sides will go along with doing something that really makes sense, like this, because i believe that through these discussiosuggestions, we have ts of something that could help us get along better and to work in the best interest of this country. again be, i'll just make a final point, and that is, it takes presidential leadership to make major changes like this, and we don't have it right now. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold his request? mr. hatch: i withhold. mr. lieberman: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank my friend from utah. i'm awaiting -- and i do see with great assurance the presence of the senator from ohio -- and while he's heading to his position, i would ask -- i would say this, madam president. i have six unanimous consent for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy for 15 minutes with my colleague from connecticut, senator lieberman, about new legislation we have just introduced, s. 3078, the world war ii memorial parity act of 2012. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, madam president. mr. portman: this bill,

madam president, will lead to the placement of a plaque or an inscription at the national world war ii memorial here in washington, d.c. with a prayer that franklin roosevelt shared with the nation by radio address 68 years ago today. the occasion was d-day, june 6, 1944. on that day, d-day, american troops, joined by allied forces, carried out an amphibious and airborne landing on five beaches along a 15-mile stretch of the heavily fortified coast of france's norm andy region. some have termed those normandy landings the beginning of the end of the war in europe. and i think history records that that's probably true. and that's because courageous americans and others were willing to risk it all. risk their lives on the courts -- on the coast of france that day. thousands made the ultimate sacrifice that day. with the invasion underway, president franklin delano roosevelt asked our nation to come together in prayer for the men who were engaged in this dangerous but very important

battle. his powerful and ecumenical prayer drawing on our nation's rich judeo-christian heritage and values brought strength and inspiration to many during what was a very challenging time for our country. today i have the honor, with senator lieberman, again to introduce this legislation to commemorate that prayer and that day. his words, of course, also brought comfort later to the many grieving families and friends of the brave men who were killed in action. those words of franklin roosevelt are etched in our history and in our minds and we hope soon in stone. our bill ensures that the prayer becomes a permanent reminder of the sacrifices of those who fought in world war ii, and with the power of prayer through -- of the power of prayer through difficult time tiems. we've worked closely with the national park service to ensure that the plaque or inscription does not disrupt the world war ii memorial or bypass what's called the commemorative works act process which governs monuments here in washington, d.c. the placement and design of the plaque will be subject to a commemorative works approval and

review process which makes it consistent with legislation passed by previous congresses. so it's adding some historical context to this beautiful memorial, adding a layer of commemoration, not taking anything away from the memorial that's already in place. my friend in the house of representatives, congressman bill johnson of ohio, introduced a house companion bill to this legislation. it actual has already passed the house -- actually has already passed the house earlier this year with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 286 -- 386-26. so today on the 60th anniversary of this historic battle known as d-day, we hope to inspire the senate to follow suit and tell the story of this powerful prayer that moved the nation and honored our heroes by placing a marker with the prayer at the world war ii memorial. i'd like now, madam president, to turn things over to senator lieberman, my cosponsor of this legislation, and a leader in our senate and in our country, for his thoughts. after that, we'll join together to recite parts of this incredibly powerful, extraordinary presidential

prayer from world war ii. senator lieberman. mr. lieberman: madam president, i thank my friend from ohio. i'm really -- i thank him for taking the lead on what i'd call a noble project and i'm -- i'm confident that all of our colleagues will join us in this, to include f.d.r.'s national prayer at the world war ii memorial. it's very important to remember in doing so that on d-day, 68 years ago today, turned out to be a pivotal moment in the war in europe. f.d.r. chose not to give a speech announcing the landing at normandy but to offer a national prayer. and i think in doing so, he we went -- went to a very proud not only tradition in america but one of our great assets, that we've had the ability to -- to bring faith and god in a very

inclusive and nondiscriminatory way into our public life, to the great benefit of our nation. as he delivered these words of prayer in a historic radio broadcast, which is, of course, the way it was done in those days, the success of the bold and dangerous d-day plan was far from assured. but with the eloquent faithfulness of his words and with his steady presidential leadership, the brave american men and women in uniform landed at normandy i think strengthened by the conviction of our national values, the -- the virtue and righteousness of their cause, and, of course, with confidence that they would benefit from the guiding grace of god. and it is -- i remember on

another normandy, moving words by president reagan, on another normandy anniversary, when he said, "the men of normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just god would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next." indeed, i think adding f.d.r.'s prayer to the grandness of the -- of the world war ii memorial will -- will even elevate it and it will rightly remind all who visit it of the essential -- the essential role that faith in god played at that pivotal moment of world history and also remind us that faith in god has played a pivotal role in american history every day since the declaration of independence, july 4, 1776, when our founders

declared that they were forming our new government to secure the rights to life, liberty and happiness that each of us received as an endowment from our creator. all this is expressed in the wonderful idea that senator portman has had and would be accomplished by -- by this project. so i yield back to my friend from ohio for the beginning of roosevelt's prayer. mr. portman: i thank my colleague from connecticut, and so well said. the power of prayer, in this case, as was true in our nation's great history, was a comfort and inspiration to the country. as i noted earlier, we would like to recite the prayer and so i would like those in the gallery and on the floor here to -- to join us in this prayer. i will start by reading the first half, including some words that president roosevelt said prior to the prayer, and then

i'm asking senator lieberman if he will read the second half. so franklin roosevelt started off by saying, "my fellow americans, last night when i spoke to you about the fall of rome, i knew at that moment that troops of the united states and our allies were crossing the channel in another and greater operation. it has come to pass with success thus far. and so, in this poignant hour, i ask you to join me in prayer prayer." and he said, "almighty god, our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization and to set free a suffering humanity. lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. we will need thy blessings. their road will be long and hard, for the enemy is strong. he may hurl back our forces. success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we

know that by thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. they will be sore tired and tried by night and by day, without rest, until the victory is won. the darkness will be rent by noise and flame. men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war. for these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. they fight not for the lust of conquest. they fight to end conquest. they fight to liberate. they fight to let justice arise and tolerance and goodwill among all thy people. they yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. some will never return. embrace these, father, and receive them, thy heroic servants, into thy kingdom. senator lieberman, i'd now like for you to read the second half of the prayer, if you would.

mr. lieberman: thank you, senator portman. and i continue with roosevelt's prayer. "and for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters and brothers of brave men overseas -- whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, almighty god, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in thee in this hour of great sacrifice. many people have urged," roosevelt said, "that i call the nation into a single day of special prayer. but because the road is long and the desire is great, i ask that our people devote themselves in a continuous of prayer. as we rise to each new day, and again when each new day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking thy help to our efforts. give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed

forces. and let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may some, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be. and, o lord, give us faith. give us faith in thee; thait if our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment, let not these deter us in our not conquerable purpose. with thy blessing, we will prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. lead us to the saving of our

country, and with our sister nations, into a world of unity that will spell a sure peace, a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. and a peace that will let all men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. thy will be donea almighty god. amen." madam president, as we know, many lives were lost on d-day and what followed but it led to the defeat -- if i may use president roosevelt's words, "of the unholy forces of our enemy" and of a remarkable peered of peace and prosperity -- remarkable period of peace and prosperity in america and certainly in europe. these are words, if i might add briefly, though the circumstances of challenge that

we face at this moment in our nation's history are much less grave than america faced on june 6, 1944. nonetheless, there's a certain absence of hopefulness today and confidence, and i would suggest, respectfully, that one of the great sources of hopefulness and confidence that we all could benefit from today is exactly the faith in god in a very inclusive way that president roosevelt spoke on that fateful day of june 6, 1944. again, with thanks to my friend from ohio for this idea and for his generosity of spirit in inviting notice join him both in sponsoring this -- inviting me to join him both in sponsoring this proposal and in reading this prayer today. i yield the floor back to the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i thank my friend from connecticut and i tell him i'm proud to stand by his side in this small effort to

commemorate what happened 68 years ago today, which was the president calling the nation in prayer and invoking the almighty to help protect our sons and daughters in battle. i got back from afghanistan yesterday morning and i would agree with my friend from connecticut that so much of what we are facing today would also be relevant to these words, i think particularly of the words where it says in the prayer, "for these men are lately draws from the ways of peace. they fight not for the lust of conquest, they fight to end conquest, they fight to liberate, they fight to let justice arise andly to exprens goodwill -- and tolerance and goodwill among all thy people. they yearn but for the end of people, for their return to the haven of home." that certainly describes our brave young men and women in uniform who are today in afghanistan protecting us and encouraging tolerance, goodwill,

justice not just for us but for that country and, indeed, for the world. i thank my colleague again for his being willing to join me in this effort. i hope my other colleagues will join us in encouraging this important and extraordinary prayer and this example of the power of faith in our nation's history to be added to the world war ii memorial. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: